Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (2.33 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
S.Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 July, 1996
35. The Counsel for the appellant, however,
placed reliance on S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, 1996(2), Apex Court Journal, 44
(SC), in support of her contention, that the
evidence of Handwriting Expert, can be
characterized, as a weak type of evidence. As
stated above, the evidence of Handwriting
Expert, cannot be said to be conclusive, to
prove the handwriting, signatures or initials
of a particular person. It is only an opinion
evidence. However, in the instant case, as
stated above, the handwriting, signatures and
initials of Pankaj Maingi, accused, on the
aforesaid documents, were proved, by Narinder
Pal Singh, Chief Accounts Officer, PW14, and
other witnesses, referred to above, beyond a
reasonable doubt. The report of the Handwriting
Expert, only furnished corroboration, to the
ocular evidence of Narinder Pal Singh, PW14 and
the other witnesses. The report of the
Handwriting Expert, was based on cogent and
convincing data, material and reasons. When the
opinion of the Handwriting Expert, corroborates
the ocular version, with regard to the
identification of the handwriting, signatures
and initials of a particular person, that can
Criminal Appeal No. 143-SB of 1998 -34-
be relied upon. The trial Court, was, thus,
right in relying upon the same. Had the case of
the prosecution, been merely based on the
report of the Handwriting Expert, for the
identification of the handwriting, signatures
and initials of Pankaj Maingi, accused, on
various documents, the argument, advanced by
the Counsel for the appellant, that, since the
opinion of Handwriting Expert, was not
conclusive, no reliance thereon, could be
placed would have carried some substance. In
the instant case, in view of the facts and
circumstances and the evidence, discussed
above, the submission of the Counsel for the
appellant, does not carry any weight. No help,
therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the
appellant, from the ratio of law, laid down, in
the aforesaid case.